Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-16 09:26:15

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 11:18 PM 2/12/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
> >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> >3. Compile time may become very large for large test
> >> > programs or heavy template usage. E.g. in one case,
> >> > we had to split a test into three (Spirit's switch_p
> >> > tests) in order to make testing feasible.
> >>
> >> It is hard to know the overall effect without accurate timings. My
> >> personal belief is that on average the total time will drop. But we
> >> need timings to know for sure.
> >
> >I still can't understand why we're focused on reducing testing time.
> The longer the tests take, the fewer times they can be cycled.
> That is a particular problem as a release nears. The release manager
> often has to delay some action pending the outcome of tests. Not a
> problem if the tests run quickly and cycle often. But when a test
> cycle takes 2 1/2 to 3 hours, as was common during the runup for
> 1.31.0, it adds days to the time it takes to finish a release.

But if we were only running the outdated tests, this would be much
less of an issue, right?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at